You’da thought they’d have learned their lesson after the Bundy Ranch standoff.
But NO. The BLM is fixin’ to have another standoff, this time with miners
Will no one reign in this out of control Bureaucracy? Or will the citizens do it the hard way? Or, will the BLM continue to hire “operators” and put them in BLM uniforms to try to control things with threats of violence?
So I guess that anyone at all who wants to exploit the public lands for personal profit should just be able to if they can frame the issue by claiming that they are somehow "victims" of the Bureau of Land Management, the government agency created specifically to protect public lands from abuse?
Until I hear some actual undisputed facts, I'm not willing to support these people who claim a right to profit from public land. Of course I think that the only mistake BLM made with the Bundys and their supporters was not moving faster and acting more decisively to lock the area down and keep Bundy's whack-job provocateurs from even getting in there.
Yeah, except that there are legal mining claims in play that BLM doesn't want to recognize any longer.
That law goes back for a long time.
Mining claims are nice, but they don't grant unlimited control of the land that the claim delineates. If they are operating outside of the strictures of the law, then the BLM has a right to either get them back into compliance or remove them from the land. And so far, all we've gotten fact-wise is a dog-whistle meant to summon the usual anti-government conspiracy types. This fight belongs in a courtroom and the BLM has the legal right to order non-compliant operations to cease prior to a hearing if they have cause.
They didn't learn anything. They have simply chosen to wait for another time suitable for them. They only increase their hatred and desire for vengeance. Until they are dismantled, they'll never quit.
Yes, Dick. God forbid that we should have a law enforcement agency that actually enforces the laws. Oh, the horror.
Or are our public lands really the private property of anyone who wants to grab a chunk of them and wave a gun at anyone else who approaches? Because without BLM, that's what we'd have.
The land is the property of the states, not the Feds (and especially not the BLM). They, however, feel otherwise. They act as if the land belongs the the BLM, not the rightful owners.
And yes, a mining claim is defacto ownership, actually, as long as the mining is taking place…..I think that is why they aren't waiting for the courts…..The gun is optional. But useful when the BLM chooses to be highhanded and arbitrary. This is the real reason for the Second.
How exactly is federal land "property of the states"? That's a new one on me. And mining claims, especially unpatented claims, only allow limited use for the extraction of minerals, period. They don't give the claimholder total use of the claim, for example, they can't build a house or any building not necessary for the mining on it, nor can they exclude other people from that land, which still belongs to the US government.
Are these miners holding a patented or unpatented claim?
You might want to do a bit of research into the laws setting up mining claims out west. I have, and they are interesting in a lot of ways. Just because you've got a claim for minerals and the right to extract them, that doesn't really give you much control of the land past that one narrow, temporary use. And if you're not actually mining but using the land for some other purpose, the BLM can, will and should boot you right off of it.
The BLM manages the land, the feds do NOT own it, they manage it for the states. This was one of the big stumbling blocks for the Bundy debacle. BLM doesn't own any land. There is no "Federal Land,(with the exceptions of parks and Federal reservations such as military reservations) really, under BLM. It all belongs to the states. You should know this. You are, after all, an attorney.
And the BLM wants to STOP the miners from MINING their claims. Not other things, but actually Mining the claims. Extracting minerals.
Had you read the article, you'd know this.
I beg to differ.
"Federal lands are lands in the United States for which ownership is claimed by the U.S. federal government, pursuant to Article Four, section 3, clause 2 of the United States Constitution. As of March 2012, out of the 2.27 billion acres in the country, about 28% of the total was owned by the Federal government according to the Interior Department. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the broad powers of the federal government to deal with federal lands, for example having unanimously held in Kleppe v. New Mexico that "the complete power that Congress has over federal lands under this clause necessarily includes the power to regulate and protect wildlife living there, state law notwithstanding"."
Federal lands belong to the people of the United States, not any one state. The only ones claiming that the feds don't own the land that Bundy was misusing are Bundy and his supporters, most of whom can also tell you conspiracy theories about gold fringe on American flags if you let them. Those people are wrong and often they are just plain nuts.
And yes, per the article, the miners claim to be mining. However it does not say what else they are doing there. Again, all I'm doing is asking for all of the facts but you seem satisfied to scream "JIHAD!" without them just because someone who has an economic interest that the government is frustrating mentions guns and opposing the government. Here's a newsflash: Lots of scumbags try to misuse federal lands for their own enrichment contrary to laws enacted to protect and preserve those lands, and sometimes the scumbags like guns too. Liking guns doesn't automatically make someone a good guy or my ally.
I want all of the facts, not just those favorable to one side.
SO NOW, after all these years, when the BLM chooses, they claim they aren't mining?
And while the BLM administers the land (Land Management) the actual land, excluding state parks and such, is OWNED by the states. You might want to check up on it. BLM administered land may include federal, state or locally owned land. That has been one pf the fights the western states have been fighting, to get control of their land back. Check up on me, if you care to. I'm right. While the Feds own many acres, BLM CONTROLS many more.
And, again, in this instance, BLM is wanting to change the rules for the miners, to gain control of the land and minerals…and chase the Miners out.
Oh, I know about federal land control–and ownership. Federal land out west IS owned by the feds, and usually because the states don't want it. It costs money to police and maintain it and it's typically valueless for most uses. But the federal government does not manage land for the states. The federal government owns that land outright and BLM administers it, one of their jobs being to ensure proper use and prevent wastage. BLM was in existence before most of the western states were ever created and statehood did not automatically transfer control of the federal lands to those states.
Now you say that the BLM wants to chase the miners out and gain control of the minerals. Can you show me actual proof of this–and beyond the claims of the miners themselves and their militia supporters? Can you show me that they are legitimately mining and not misusing the land? The BLM says that they are in violation of current laws and regulations that apply to mining activities. If that's so, where does the idea that they cannot be stopped come into play? And if these camo-clad whack-jobs start shooting at federal agents up there, they're liable to get more than they've bargained for.
SHow me where they are in violation, instead. You made the accusation.
And yes, much like the Bundy Standoff, the feds will sin…..
Look up "Consent of the Governed" sometime.
The BLM has said that they are in violation, not me. That's why they are ordering them to cease and desist, something that the BLM, as steward of the land on behalf of the people of the United States, has a right to do.
"Consent of the Governed" does not mean that any individual or small group can decide that they don't want to accept the rules and laws of the United States and just do what they please within the boundaries of this country. That was pretty decisively settled 1861-1865. Live here and you're subject to the jurisdiction of the representative government that we all elect and control collectively. And enter into a deal with the US government to extract minerals from land owned by the US government and you do so subject to their rules, and they have the right and the duty to remove you if you're not doing it correctly. All basic law school first-year stuff, and plenty of Supreme Court rulings to support it.
SO then, why didn't the BLM go through the courts rather than just a new set of rules?
The BLM is. They've just told these guys to cease and desist pending a hearing, but in the meantime, BLM wants all non-conforming structures off the land. Again, we're only getting one side of this here, and that's the side of the extremists who have a motive to distort and misrepresent. The government doesn't argue it's case in the media (and they should not) so we don't have statements from them. Be assured though that there is more to this story than the extremists are letting out. We don't even know who they really are because it appears that they're using the militia extremists as their mouthpieces and hiding behind them.
Why do you assume the miners are the extremists and not the BLM? There are zealots in the government, you know. Worse zealots because they have the backing of a large government behind them.
Sorry, but most government workers are just that–people going about their 9-5 jobs, which sometimes includes enforcing regulations. They get paid either way and they don't gain anything extra by messing with people unneccessarily. And so far, I only see one side threatening armed violence, so that pretty much makes it easy to spot the extremists.
I like the fact that you fail to answer any of my questions.
I thought that I did. Like I said, only one side here is threatening violence and calling for any and every unshaven whackjob with a gun to come and join them. The BLM folks aren't doing any of that; they're just doing their jobs, far as I can tell.
And BLM is using the threat of violence to push people off of what they believe are legitimate mining claims.
Not waiting for the courts, mind you….
But the BLM boys don't like it when they are on the end of what THEY consider to be threats of violence for their (perceived) illegal actions.
All about viewpoint, innit. Seems that that is what the courts are for, to determine who is right. Sadly, the BLM will only back of with the threat of violence….
Where has the BLM specifically threatened violence? I must have missed that part.
And please, not a claim from the militia types that the BLM has made such a threat, because those folks aren't credible.
The BLM has issued a cease and desist order and told these folks to get off of federal land. The miners have a right to have a hearing, but first they need to comply with the lawful order from the land owner, which is the US government.
And the COURTS can decide if it indeed a lawful order. Until then, the BLM doesn't get to change the rules and arbitrarily order the miners off.